Evaluating Learning

Internet Research Teams and Classroom Presentations

Very early in the semester, by means of an online survey, students
in the course choose four broad Computer Ethics topics to be
covered in addition to the two mandatory topics (History and Nature
of Computer Ethics, Professional Responsibility). After four
additional broad "Course Topics" have been chosen, students are
divided into five person "Internet Research Teams" - one team for
each of the four chosen topics. (Maximum enrollment in this
"critical writing" course is 20 students.) Each team conducts
Internet research to identify what the members take to be the five
best websites in their area of research. As their research
develops, team members discuss their progress in "team discussion
rooms" on the WebCT site. After everyone on a team has agreed upon
the five best web sites in their area of responsibility, each
member selects a specific research topic and writes a "Research
Project Proposal." Each of the five members of the team must choose
a specific research topic that is different from the other four
topics. All five projects, however, must be in the same general
area of Computer Ethics (e.g., privacy, security, globalization,
etc.)

During the course, while their chosen area of Computer Ethics is
being studied by the class as a whole, each team makes an in-class
Internet-assisted presentation, explaining and demonstrating to
their classmates and the instructor "the five best web sites" in
their research area.

Graded Assignments

This is a "W" course, which is part of the University's
"Writing-Assignments Across-the-Curriculum" Program." So each
student will produce 5,000 words of analytical writing, more than
half of which will be revised, based upon comments of the
instructor. In addition, each student will take five online quizzes
and give one classroom web site demonstration. These assignments,
plus class participation, can generate a maximum of 1,000 "grade
points", which will be used to determine the student's course
grade. (See the attached list of assignments and grade points.)

Example Paper Assignments

Prior to the Fall 2006 semester, paper-writing assignments in this
course were not combined into a semester-long research project. It
may nevertheless be informative to readers of the present model to
see examples of paper-writing assignments from previous semesters.
Several examples are presented here.

1. In the history of computing, new ideas and concepts often were
developed or "discovered" before anyone had created a physical
object or a physical process to make use of them. For example,
Napier discovered logarithms, and later Oughtred used them to
invent the slide rule. Write a paper in which you clearly and
carefully explain three to five such ideas, plus the circumstances
in which they first became known, then finally the circumstances in
which they first were successfully incorporated into a physical
object or physical process. (Note: Use the web resources on the
history of computing that are included on the textbook-associated
web site. Be sure to specify the URLs that you accessed to help you
prepare your paper.)

2. Clearly and fully describe each of the five steps in Norbert
Wiener's method of doing computer ethics (see the relevant
handout), then use Wiener's five steps to ethically analyze the
"Free Range Property" case in the textbook.

4. Using the Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional
Practice, write a case analysis of the famous London Ambulance
Case. Be sure to do the following things in your analysis:

a. Describe the case in your own words and then identify the key
ethical issues raised by the case.

b. Apply appropriate components of the Software Engineering Code of
Ethics and Professional Practice to explain what, if anything,
failed to conform to the Code.

c. Draw appropriate conclusions, including advice on preventing
similar problems in the future.

5. Using Elizabeth France's article in the textbook as a basis,
explain the European Union's way of protecting privacy and compare
that method to the one proposed by James Moor in his article in the
textbook.

6. First, explain - in your own words! - James Moor's definition of
privacy and his proposal to create "zones of privacy." Next, put
yourself in the shoes of a business person running a company and
explain how you could gather information about a customer's
shopping and browsing habits in order to serve the customer better,
while at the same time respecting and preserving that customer's
privacy. (Note: There is no obvious right answer to this
challenging question. This assignment is an invitation to become
creative and speculative about the possibilities.)

7. In her article "The Computer Revolution and Global Ethics",
Krystyna Gorniak compares the "computer revolution" to the
"printing press revolution." Explain in detail how, according to
Gorniak, these two revolutions are similar to each other. (Hint:
How did the printing press revolution lead to changes in ethics?
How, according to Gorniak, will the computer revolution do the
same?) Why, according to Gorniak, must Computer Ethics be
considered a global ethics? Why does Gorniak think that Computer
Ethics is even more important than its founders believed?

8. Using ideas from John Weckert's article "Giving Offence on the
Internet", explain what "giving offence" means. Why, according to
Weckert, are some kinds of offence harmful and serious while other
kinds are not? Why is the Internet an especially likely "place" for
offence to occur? Give some examples to illustrate your points. How
do these ideas relate to the question of censorship on the
Internet?

In the University as a Whole

CSC/PHI 324 Computer Ethics participates in the University's
Writing-Across-the-Curriculum Program, which includes the following
guidelines for courses in the Program:

W-courses use writing as a vehicle for learning, requiring students
to express, reformulate, or apply the concepts of an academic
discipline. Current research has shown that revision is a necessary
part of writing. Therefore, the emphasis on writing in W-courses is
not intended primarily to give students additional practice in
basic composition skills, but to encourage students to think more
clearly and express their thoughts more precisely. W-courses take a
two-pronged approach to learning, with the students addressing
subject matter via written assignments and the instructor aiming to
improve the quality of written performance by giving feedback and
requiring revision.

The Writing-Across-the-Curriculum Program should include courses
and instructors in all disciplines. It is particularly desirable to
foster W-courses in such previously under-represented fields as
applied arts and social sciences, and the technical and
quantitative sciences. The following guidelines describe the sort
of course envisaged, though alternative means to the same end will
always be considered.

a. A significant portion of the writing for the course should be
critical/analytical
writing.

- Critical/analytical writing addresses a question for which there
is more than one plausible interpretation, explanation, analysis,
or evaluation, and thus requires original thought from the student.
This original thought both demonstrates and assists the student's
mastery of course material. In other words, in W-courses students
practice solving discipline-based problems through writing.

- Instructors communicate their knowledge of writing in their
disciplines to their students through a variety of means, such as
paper comments, conferences, handouts, and in-class presentations
on writing.

- In addition to formal papers, the critical/analytical component
may include short, unrevised papers, essay exams, and in-class
writings.

- Instructors may encourage revision in a variety of ways, e.g.,
written comments on drafts, one-on-one conferences, and in-class
peer workshops.

- To encourage revision, instructors' comments should suggest
changes and explain reasons for the suggestions.

- Ordinarily, instructors should require substantial revision of
students' work (preferably at least two assignments totaling 1500 -
2500 words) be turned in for additional response (comments and
grade).

c. W-courses should, in general, require students to write 5000
words over the course of the semester.

- Given the nature of revision, which necessitates rethinking the
content of a piece of writing (see point b above), revised versions
of earlier papers may be part of the total word count. When the
final draft will merely be a corrected version of the preliminary
draft, the pages in the preliminary draft should not be considered
as part of the total word count.

- The writing should be spread throughout the semester, in a
minimum of three (3) assignments, which may be separate or related
to one another. Because extensive revisions are encouraged,
students need time to revise, and instructors need time to comment.

- To help assess students' writing skills, one assignment of at
least 250 words might profitably be assigned and evaluated in the
first week of the semester. In addition, because writing is a tool
for learning, further writing assignments should be incorporated
into the class as early in the term as possible.

- Written assignments should be a major part of the course grade.
It is suggested that out-of-class papers count for 50% or more of
the semester grade, though in certain fields, other percentages may
appropriately be applied.

Online Quizzes

Besides the in-depth knowledge that each student gains from a
research project, he or she also must learn key ideas from the
history of Computer Ethics, and from several broad areas of
Computer Ethics, such as privacy, security, professional
responsibility, ownership of intellectual property, non-human
"agents" (robots and softbots), access to computing technology by
persons with disabilities, globalization of computer networks (to
name a few examples). These topics are covered in the textbook, in
"handouts" posted on the WebCT site, in presentations by visiting
lecturers, in student web-site-research reports, and occasionally
in films and videos. In order to demonstrate their broad knowledge
of several areas of Computer Ethics, students must each take five
online quizzes on the course WebCT site. Two of these quizzes are
on the History and Nature of Computer Ethics and on Professional
Responsibility. After that, each student can choose any three of
the remaining on-line quizzes.

Each semester, there are six on-line quizzes available on the
course WebCT site. The quizzes cover the two mandatory course
topics (History and Nature of Computer Ethics, Professional
Responsibility) plus four general topics selected by the students
early in the semester. Every student must take five of these six
on-line quizzes, including the two mandatory ones.

By this means, students demonstrate their broad knowledge of ideas
and issues in the field of Computer Ethics. The quizzes consist of
12 to 15 questions each, and most of the answers are graded by the
computer upon which the quiz is taken. Two or three answers in each
quiz consist of sentences or paragraphs that must be graded
individually by the instructor.

Teaching and Learning Strategies

Introductory Comments. Students learn best when they are actively
engaged in discussions, research, writing and other activities. In
addition, they are positively motivated when they believe that they
are doing something important and helpful to others. The course was
developed with these ideas in mind; and since 1988, it has been a
"work in progress", continually evolving as new materials and
teaching strategies were tried and new developments in information
technology generated social and ethical challenges. Students taking
the course contributed to its development over the years by
commenting on and rating experimental teaching materials and
strategies. They also suggested "basic study questions" and cases
to analyze for inclusion in a textbook that began to emerge from
the evolving course. Eventually, they also contributed works of
their own to the course-related web site.

Although the course includes lectures by the instructor, or by
visiting scholars, the students engage in a variety of learning
activities other than simply taking notes. For example, they
participate in online discussions on the course WebCT site; they
work in five-person teams doing research on the Internet and
reporting the results to the class; they engage in paper-writing
projects that include graded proposals, outlines, drafts and
revisions; and they take online surveys and quizzes. The students
also take a pre-test and a post-test as part of the University's
ongoing assessment program.

Beginning in the Fall 2005 semester, a new student opportunity was
added to the course. Students whose research results are excellent,
and may be useful to others, are invited to share their works with
the world by publishing them on the web site of the Research Center
on Computing & Society, an influential Computer Ethics site
with two million hits per year from over 120 countries of the world
(see Computer
Ethics on the Internet ). Students whose works are selected for
inclusion on this web site are pleased to know that people in many
countries will see their works and may benefit from them.

Online Surveys

From time to time, students have the opportunity to express their
preferences in online surveys and thereby influence the content and
events of the course. For example, early in the semester, the
students themselves select four broad "Course Topics" (from a list
provided by the instructor) to be covered after the two mandatory
topics - (1) the History and Nature of Computer Ethics and (2)
Professional Responsibility for Computer Professionals - have been
completed.

Online Discussions

One third of the students at the University live on campus. The
remaining two thirds live in New Haven, or in surrounding
communities, or in other regions of Connecticut. In addition, most
students have jobs or family responsibilities that make it
difficult for them to meet fellow students face-to-face outside the
classroom. For these reasons, student discussions outside the
classroom take place primarily on-line, "asynchronously", on the
course WebCT site. The class and its research-project teams are, in
effect, "online communities" when they "meet" outside the
classroom.

Visiting Lectures, Videos, Films

During the semester, there a many class sessions into which one can
integrate presentations by visiting lecturers or video excerpts or
short films. These "class-session enrichment events" occur about
three to five times per semester, depending upon opportunities and
the instructor's wishes for that semester.

Evaluating of Student Work (and Attendance)

1,000 grade points - There are ten graded assignments in the
course, which together can generate a maximum of 1,000 "grade
points". The assignments are weighted, with the lowest gradepoint
value (the draft research topic proposal) being 10 points (1% of
the course grade) and the highest (the revised research paper)
being 250 points (25% of the course grade). [See the "List of
Assignments and Their Point Values" above.] The course grade is
determined by the following equivalence list:

After two unexcused absences, students lose 20 points (2% of the
course grade) for each additional unexcused absence.

In-Class Oral Web-Site Reviews

Each student must identify and review a rich, helpful web site
related to his or her course research project. First, the student
gives an in-class oral review of the site, which includes an
Internet-assisted demonstration. After that, the student writes a
three-page review of the same site. The oral review is worth 30
grade points and the written review is worth 50 grade points.

In-Class Participation and On-Line Discussion

This part of the course is worth 100 grade points (10% of the
course grade). To encourage spontaneous, relaxed online discussion,
students' entries are not graded on the quality of English usage.
Instead, they are graded on the usefulness of the student's
comments for moving the discussion forward in a helpful way. This
is very easy to achieve if the student participates seriously in
discussions. Similar considerations govern the evaluation of
in-class participation. On-line and in-class discussions typically
have been very lively and interesting, and students find it
relatively easy to earn at least 90 grade points from these popular
course activities.

Evaluation of the Course and of Teaching

Near the end of the semester, using "The Connecticut State
University Course Information Survey," the course and the
instructor's teaching are evaluated by the students. This
evaluation instrument, which is used on all four campuses of the
Connecticut State University System, consists of 30 questions with
answers that are machine readable (except for students' written
comments at the end). The questions cover a variety of
teaching-evaluation topics, such as the usefulness of class
materials and class activities, the number and quality of graded
assignments, the availability and helpfulness of the instructor,
fairness in the grading of assignments, and the overall quality of
the course and instruction. The University's Office of
Institutional Research scores the answer sheets and provides a
computer-generated report to the Department Chair and (after grades
have been turned in) to the instructor. Ever since the Fall
semester of 1988, when the course first was offered, these student
evaluations have been excellent for both the course and the
instructor.

Research Projects

This course is part of the University's
writing-across-thecurriculum program. Most of the students'
writings are related to course-long research projects that include,
for each student, a Research Project Proposal, a Research Web Site
Review, a Research-Related Case Analysis, a Research Paper Outline,
a Research Paper Draft, and a Completed Research Paper. These
assignments constitute, for each student, a minimum of 5,000 words
of writing. Two of the assignments, totaling 2,750 words, must be
revised based upon constructive comments by the instructor.

Assignment Sheets for Written Assignments

For each written assignment, there is a sheet that describes the
work that should be produced and lists the criteria that will be
used to grade it. The students can use this sheet as a guide and a
checklist, as well as a helpful aid to ask good questions about the
assignment. The instructor uses the sheet to help make the grading
efficient as well as consistent from student to student. The
assignment sheet also provides an excellent starting point for
relevant discussions between the student and the instructor.